u/Ok_Letterhead5047

I ask this after seeing a post about Buchanan and Calhoun defending a client who is obviously guilty and still pleading not guilty.

But lawyers like Buchanan and Calhoun could represent a client who's overwhelmingly guilty but if the client wants to plead not guilty and how they want to is up to the client. They can only give their opinion.

Now I know that we all hate attorneys like Buchanan, but he's a damn good defense attorney if you ever needed one.

And even if you don't agree with the client you can't just quit after being retained. You have to either get permission from a judge or the client isn't able to pay the fees.

The whole point of a defense attorney is because everyone, no matter how vile, deserves a defense.

I want to become a defense attorney myself and I also have an aunt who is an actual attorney and she told me about a case she had for years and couldn't get out of until the client couldn't afford her anymore.

Now I know that we all hate attorneys like Buchanan, but he's a damn good defense attorney if you ever needed one.

I saw a post saying it's obvious the client is guilty and they still pleaded not guilty.

That's a defense attorney's job though. Also pleading not guilty and why isn't up to them, it's up to the client.

Like in Locomotion of Law and Order when the defendant refuses to listen to his lawyer and has his plea changed to not guilty without insanity, the defense attorney can oppose but ultimately the choice isn't up to them.

Or in Choice of Evils where the mother defense is that she killed her son to protect the public and even though her attorney doesn't agree she still represents her because the plea is up to the client.

Lawyers like Buchanan and Calhoun could represent a client who's overwhelmingly guilty but if the client wants to plead not guilty and how they want to is up to the client. They can only give their opinions

And even if you don't agree with the client you can't just quit after being retained. You have to either get permission from a judge or the client isn't able to pay the fees.

The whole point of a defense attorney is because everyone, no matter how vile, deserves a defense.

I want to become a defense attorney myself and I also have an aunt who is an actual attorney and she told me about a case she had for years and couldn't get out of until the client couldn't afford her anymore.

I personally stole from the car because for all we know the owners died in the zombie horde we just escaped.

Hell, I would've taken the whole car if we had the option.

I know it disappointed Clem, but we’re five adults and three kids.

In this episode a man opens fire at city hall, killing a councilman and injuring a water inspector.

Naturally in the beginning everyone believes that the councilman was the target but it's later revealed that the water inspector was the actual target by a disgruntled client over issues with the water bill.

It's also revealed that the client was already on the FBI's radar after the murder weapon went missing because the FBI actually already did a search days prior with a secret warrant signed by a federal judge and it was all legal.

I know Southerlyn and Melnick don't agree and Danielle actually tries to shame McCoy with using evidence obtained from the FBI's search so I wanted to see everyone else's opinions.

The shooter was of course found guilty and in less than an hour since even if you disagreed with the FBI the guy still took a gun and shot two people over the water bill.

Just watched this episode for the first time and I know that Liv always tries to believe the victim but she was crazy here actually saying that Miguel admitted to what he did to Lourdes and treating Stone like he's crazy for not immediately going after him?

I know in the end she turned out to be right but anyone could see that the confession during the hostage was coerced and would most likely not hold up in court at all.

Liv telling Stone to drop the charges against Lourdes is crazy considering she didn't even murder the guy who raped her, she killed the owner of the apartment where she was holding Miguel hostage and the owner had no part in the Lourdes/Miguel thing.

So we know from the campaign that after the events of the Mighty Nein, Caleb told Essek his given name and is even comfortable with Essek calling him Bren.

Does anyone else really hope that in the show we get to see Caleb tell Essek his given name?

Also their first actual kiss better be on screen.

In this episode a woman is tried and convicted of murdering a man she claimed raped her. McCoy and the DA use the fact that she was a prostitute and only claimed rape after being caught.

I wanted others opinions. This is definitely a tough one as I believe in believing the victim but in this case like McCoy said she only claimed rape after being caught. It was only her word with no supporting evidence.

It's actually the opposite of S11 E4 Standoff when the DA goes after a correctional officer for planning the murder of an inmate for revenge of raping his fiance but the DA has no evidence to prove this other than the word of an already twice convicted murderer.

For me the entire episode couples is just gold.

Specifically the guy explaining they can't charge him for killing his sister in law because she was his wife and they can't arrest him because he already killed her was hilarious to me. Just the way he said it.

In reality his wife ran off ten years prior and after getting out of jail for being convicted of killing her when she wasn't actually dead and that meant that double jeopardy applied because he can't be convicted of killing the same wife.

He also said that if they did try him again then he would have a great wrongful imprisonment lawsuit for the ten years he already did.

I was wondering about episodes where the defendant got off.

I was thinking about S9 E18 where its revealed that a woman was her mother's real killer and let her mother's boyfriend go to prison for it.

The DA goes after her but since at the time of the crime she was 15 and the law then was that juveniles were sent to be rehabilitated her lawyer got the case dismissed since if they were to try the crime now she would be facing more time than she had if she were 15. The judge has no other choice than to dismiss the case because you can't try a 39 year old as a juvenile.

What are other ways defendants have gotten away?

So I am currently working on a fantasy story about two warring kingdoms that involve magic. The biggest inspirations that I have are Shadow and Bone and Attack on Titan.

Describing characters skin color is not the current issue that I have. I have tried my best but I would like to know how to properly describe the characters eyes that I picture in my mind as Asian.

For example in the story while I am writing my main protagonist I picture Jessie Mei Li from Shadow and Bone since the protagonist is biracial and Shadow and Bone is a big inspiration for me and another character I picture Charlie Bushnell from Percy Jackson.

I just really want to know how I can properly write out and describe their appearance to the audience without sounding offensive.

For me its S11 E4 Standoff of Law and Order.

So, in this episode they go after a correctional officer for the murder of an inmate in revenge for the inmate raping his fiancé another correctional officer. He uses another inmate who'd already had a history with the other kill the guy since then it'll look like two inmates got into an altercation.

The correctional officer was found not guilty and McCoy, Carmichael, and Lewin all file it under jury nullification because they tried the victim, but did they have any actual evidence that wasn't circumstantial?

I know that in universe the correctional officer likely did it but to a jury it's going to look like an already convicted murderer killed another guy he had a previous encounter with and that the DA wants to put the blame on the officer who at most was negligent when patting down an inmate and they want someone to blame that isn't already behind bars for life.

Even if the jury look at the idea of this being revenge by the correctional officer there is still no actual evidence that isn't circumstantial just like the defense attorney said.

There was no actual evidence against the correctional officer to warrant these charges.

So the episodes are different and similar at the same time but the audience reaction seems to be different.

In Hot Pursuit a woman is tried and convicted after participating on a crime spree despite having been kidnapped, raped, and abused for months and the only time she ever fired a weapon was when her captor made her and even then it was to scare people during a robbery, she never actually killed anyone, was just forced to be an accomplice.

In Terrorized an immigrant is abused, raped, and held against her will by her fiance and his brother with threat of death and losing her son. Like the first woman she was a forced accomplice and never actually killed anyone but is still convicted.

I've seen very different reactions as people say the woman in Hot Pursuit deserved to be convicted but the woman in Terrorized didn't. Why's that?

So the episodes are different and similar at the same time but the audience reaction seems to be different.

In Hot Pursuit a woman is tried and convicted after participating on a crime spree despite having been kidnapped, raped, and abused for months and the only time she ever fired a weapon was when her captor made her and even then it was to scare people during a robbery, she never actually killed anyone, was just forced to be an accomplice.

In Terrorized an immigrant is abused, raped, and held against her will by her fiance and his brother with threat of death and losing her son. Like the first woman she was a forced accomplice and never actually killed anyone but is still convicted.

I've seen very different reactions as people say the woman in Hot Pursuit deserved to be convicted but the woman in Terrorized didn't. Why's that?

In this episode the family goes to Brown County to redo Mothers Day but it turns out it was only a special event for Mothers Day.

My confusion is at the fact that the family goes back a week later and that's when everything is being cleaned up. They even had the special Mothers Day menu and photographer still up.

Did they just leave everything up for a week and have all the workers working day of come back?

Anybody else feel like that woman is not a natural blonde?

This occurred to me even more after hearing the theory that she's Smiles daughter and his daughter is in fact brunette.

So in this episode Liv goes after a man who's been lying about his identity to get women to have sex with him.

She says its rape because they consented to having sex with the man he pretended to be even though they gave verbal consent to the man they were with.

Not once did anyone bring up Cassidy or Amaro both having sex with women while undercover and using fake identities.

The only difference is that the perp stole a real person's identity but that's a whole separate legal matter that he could easily be sued by the real guy and college for.

Also as the defense attorney said, the women were technically committing prostitution as they were sleeping with him in return for something.

This is definitely a gray area as there are actual examples of rape by deception like in the episode where the football player is blindfolded and told hes going to be with one of the girls but it was actually a male cheerleader.

So in this episode Liv goes after a man who's been lying about his identity to get women to have sex with him.

She says its rape because they consented to having sex with the man he pretended to be even though they gave verbal consent to the man they were with.

Not once did anyone bring up Cassidy or Amaro both having sex with women while undercover and using fake identities.

The only difference is that the perp stole a real person's identity but that's a whole separate legal matter that he could easily be sued by the real guy and college for.

Also as the defense attorney said, the women were technically committing prostitution as they were sleeping with him in return for something.

Who are characters we're supposed to feel sympathy for but you don't?

Here's a few examples for me.

Law and Order: Survivor S7 E4

Judith murdered a man over coins her father lost in the holocaust only to later learn that the coins were never in his or his partners possession, they just used it for insurance.

We're supposed to feel bad for her because of things she herself never endured. During the hearing to see if what the cops found would be suppressed or not McCoy says that they have laws and she responds that so did Nazi Germany. But like she herself wasn't in Nazi Germany during WW2, her parents were.

SVU: S12 E5

Emma had a hard upbringing with her grandma and was a former addict but I just couldn't feel sorry for her.

Yeah the victim wasn't the greatest person but she was also a recovering addict working and definitely did not deserve Emma poisoning her.

I definitely enjoyed the part where the grandma takes the necklace not for herself but to give it the the victims young daughter now left without a mother which is ironic as at the end Emma says that all she wanted was a mom but now left another little girl without a mother.

Edit: This isn't a debate post. I just wanted to hear other examples

So, in this episode they go after a correctional officer for the murder of an inmate in revenge for the inmate raping his fiancé another correctional officer. He uses another inmate who'd already had a history with the other kill the guy since then it'll look like two inmates got into an altercation.

The correctional officer was found not guilty and McCoy, Carmichael, and Lewin all file it under jury nullification because they tried the victim, but did they have any actual evidence that wasn't circumstantial?

I know that in universe the correctional officer likely did it but to a jury it's going to look like an already convicted murderer killed another guy he had a previous encounter with and that the DA wants to put the blame on the officer who at most was negligent when patting down an inmate and they want someone to blame that isn't already behind bars for life.

Even if the jury look at the idea of this being revenge by the correctional officer there is still no actual evidence that isn't circumstantial just like the defense attorney said.

I've seen people say that this episode ruins Cabot but frankly I loved her in this episode. Some people say she's out of character but I don't think so at all, since we've seen her bend the law previously and then she left to go help women in another country.

Frankly Liv is the one more out of character by pressuring Jules to go home to a husband Liv knows is beating her just because she and Stone decided to jump the gun and arrest the husband for murder when there was no clear evidence.